Treena wrote:
> I admit I don't know much about image stabilization, but I seem to recall an
> article in Pop Photo that said the technology sacrifices a good bit of
> resolution to achieve its result. For any of you who have used IS lenses, is
> that true, and to what extent?
Yes. The movable elements introduces abberations that needs to be corrected by other
elements. All things equal (which they don't have to be), a certain IS lens would be
better optically without the IS. Thats why IS is a system that is theoretically best
as an add-on, converter type. In this way you don't have to suffer reduced quality
when the feature is not in use.
This means that even if a Canon IS lens is damned good, it would have been even better
without the IS.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
